Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Cynthia Yarrow
Longmont, CO
Recent Activity
-
Cynthia commented on the article |
No one is attacking this kid's right to free speech, the whole point of the conversation is a commentary on how stupidity and ignorance leads to hatred. This kid's brain cells have been washed of all decency and common sense, but fortunately for him, our not-so-xtian Constitution also guarantees him, and others, the right to be stupid.
Indeed, it seems obvious he doesn't possess the smarts or critical thinking skills to ever become a doctor, so he will never have to take the hippocratic oath. Which is a good thing because if he did, and he harmed people through his hate crusades, then that would make him a hypocrit.
And there's your explanation. You might want to consider purchasing a dictionary if you're still feeling mystified..
-
Cynthia commented on the article |Dina - no! Presenting yourself as respectful, tolerant and peaceful has nothing to do with the religionist's objection to you being able to marry a woman. It has everything to do with their religion, which instructs them to hate you for who you are.
Forget presenting yourself as something akin to a martyr. Prove them wrong in two ways: 1) Ask them to demonstrate exactly HOW your relationship with another woman negatively impacts their relationships. Make them explain in full detail how what you do behind closed doors impairs the heterosexual relationship. 2) Point out that the religion they blindly believe in is WRONG by virtue of being hopelessly outdated and the product of ancient, superstitious minds.
Anything short of those two things will guarantee that you lose the argument because not only are these irrational people, they have no rational argument other than the literal interpretation of their religious books. Ignore this fact at your own continued peril.
-
Cynthia commented on the article |
To those of you who say we should tolerate religion, settle ourselves on higher ground from those who choose to pull what we consider the ‘wrong' interpretation out of it, I challenge you to prove my above interpretation wrong. While it certainly cuts gay men some slack, it still doesn't do much for the status of women, and it does nothing but mock science and even common sense. But you still can't disprove it for it is my interpretation and I swear on a stack of bibles (including every version ever written by he-man, I mean, He-god) it came to me in a vision from He-god while high on shrooms in Sedona (me, not Him).
At what point do our real-world sensibilities become too strained, if not already now? And are you genuinely preaching tolerance, or are you guarding against an open and honest evaluation of how truly ignorant and outdated religion really is, whether literal or liberal? My feelings tend toward the latter because we all know liberal religionists are the good guys, right?
I've just been looking at this religious tolerance website, and it quotes the bible, in all its spiteful vitriol, and then goes on to tell us how some scholars prefer to interpret these sickening passages in more palatable ways, as if this mitigates what it actually says. If this book is supposed to represent standard operating procedures to achieve some rite of passage to the afterworld, the alternative being an eternity spent in agony, don't you think its original author would have made sure it was preserved in a manner that was obvious to all in order that everyone had a real and informed choice?
Tolerance in today's sense of the word means we don't go out and beat, maim, torture or kill someone who has a difference of opinion, or lives a lifestyle different than our own. It does NOT mean that we sit silently by and refuse to challenge the very origins of those beliefs on the grounds that they're just too personal or sacred. Only in America do we afford incredibly generous and unfounded deference to such obviously deranged idiots.
-
Cynthia commented on the article |
Brian "one too many" Beverages wrote: "The word states man was made in God's image...yap, yap, yap"
Hey pumpkin, here's an interesting slant on that piece-of-crap bible of yours:In that profound beginning, biblegod made MAN in "God's image," and, as we know, made woMAN as an afterthought, and not apparently in HIS image since HE could not be a SHE. It makes perfect sense, then, that men, being god-lovers and thus self-image lovers, should actually prefer other men to woMEN since, having a narcissistic god for a creator, would naturally liken unto themselves in the form of other men.
I don't know about you, but nothing excites my husband more than staring at himself in the mirror as he flexes his he-man muscles and watches, in eternal fascination, his staff of glory rise to the occasion, in perfect emulation of his joy-stick creator.
So here's the problem with, as I think we've now established, natural homosexuality, at least according to HE-god: He-men were made with semen to impregnate woMEN. This was done because He-god got lazy or bored (or tired, to give him the benefit of the doubt) after six busy days of creating, and decided to make his mirror-image MEN get on the stick, literally, and take over his job of creating. But his first He-man clearly saw the ickiness of first woMAN when she convinced him to eat an apple that exposed her nakedness, and he saw for the first time that SHE was nowhere near as grand as HE.
So along with kicking their bare-naked, self-educated asses out of the garden, He-god made forced marriage (ball and chain) between He-man and woMAN as part of the punishment, but also to ensure that woMAN cleaved to her He-man. This would ensure that, like it or not, man and woMAN would be forced to conjugate their verbs. He-god, however, still favored his own image, and didn't want to punish it unduly (woMAN was, after all, not firing on all cylinders due to the hormones He-god managed to craft from prototype man's rib).
It appears then, that He-god had to sweeten an increasingly bitter pot by throwing in some concubines. If one lowly cow of a wife couldn't coax the snake out of the basket after two sons (imagine her hips and thighs at THIS point!), perhaps several more ribs would not be too much of a sacrifice. It seems certain that He-god's first breath was more than enough to render first-made's ribless torso perpetually inflated (there are those biblical scholars and creationists who have good reason to believe that this first breath was actually helium and not oxygen).
He-god was and is no fool, though. These concubines served another purpose as well: to act as an insurance policy against barren wives (and, of course, Appalachian Americans via incest), and thus a barren landscape devoid of humans. For clearly this was the goal of He-god - to overrun his six-day creation with as many of his human creations as possible. (A hearty round of applause, please, for all the concubines who did their He-god's bidding with such aplomb. Indeed, some of us may not even be here today if not for their selfless acts of slavery.)
All of this, obviously, fits perfectly into HIS grand plans for overpopulation, which invariably leads to pestilence, starvation, endless strife, and general suffering for ALL so that Armageddon will seem like the welcome change of pace it's promised to be. Vegas will have nothing on He-god when HE finally arrives in his fiery chariot, trumpets a'blowin' with Cher singing backup to Freddie Mercury, and showers us with a kind of love that will put to shame the Bubonic Plague and Hiroshima combined.
Hoo-rah for He-god! Semper Fi!
Oh dear, was that a bit of silly nonsense, Beverage in a can? Of course it was, but when you're dealing with the "word," or, in other words, magical, superstitious hoo doo, the sky does not begin to encompass the heights of absurdity people can take religion. But therein lies the perfect beauty of silly putty hoo hoo - you can mold it to suit your every need, and when that need requires re-shaping, tad a!, Gumby religion to the rescue, again!
[insert infomercial] You can slice it, you can dice it... -
Cynthia signed the petition | -
Cynthia commented on the article |
Arcadia - you make an excellent point about yelling fire in a crowded theater, and although I agree with you on an emotional level, I think there is a difference between the two. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater will have an essentially known outcome, and people could be injured immediately, or, if repeated enough times, inure the crowd to the point of crying wolf.
I think you're going to get mostly the slippery slope argument here with regards to free speech, and I'm not sure I won't deliver it either. I am torn on this issue because I do believe in unfettered free speech, yet I can see where restrictions could be beneficial. The problem lies in those who decide upon and administer such restrictions.
The hard part, quite simply, is human society - it does not yet seem evolved enough to be able to have any kind of power and use it wisely. Once we organize, in the form of governments, religions, and other institutions, we become corrupted (and stupid!). Of all the animals on the planet, we have the most in common with the political animal, and thus, cannot be trusted with such decisions.
Better to leave them wide open than not. -
Cynthia commented on the article |
"I personally wonder if anything that this kid was preaching in this video was an original thought." Tom
Well, wonder no more! Of course he's not having original thoughts, unless you consider the bible to be original, in which case, he's only have biblical thoughts. :-) -
Cynthia commented on the article |
"If hate is learned, then it lies on the shoulders of our schools, church officials..." Mannino
Let's stop right there, at church officials. Where on earth do you think christians learn their hate? From church officials, who learn it from the "good" book they study and find to be infallible. What needs to be addressed is the religion these teenagers espouse, because as long as you defend their religion, you're defending their beliefs and thus their hate.
The bible DOES teach hate towards homosexuals (among others, like women), and these teenagers are well within their "rights" as believers to hate as well. Tackle the religion and you tackle the hate.
Dina - you can't just change christianity, modernize it, and take out certain things you don't like. What exactly is the point of believing in the religion if you don't believe what it teaches? If you don't like what much of the bible has to say, as I would hope you don't, then why change it? Why not, instead, adopt your own belief system rather than adapt a belief system to your own?
Sounds to me like you can think well enough on your own, as most liberals and moderates can. Which is why I'm so mystified over the defense of the bible by these same people who can obviously discern right from wrong based on their own conscience and sense of integrity. Relying on superstition originating from ancient books is so NOT modern, so NOT scientific, and so very NOT necessary. -
Cynthia commented on the article |My apologies to everyone for being a bit off topic, but Michael has spurned me on. Just for the sake of establishing credibility with you, Michael, my 46-year old breasts are still firmly planted on my chest, but then, I never had children, and I apparently have good genes. One was within my control, the other not so much.
I'm amused that you dropped a few pounds so women will find you attractive, yet you post a picture of yourself with a cancer stick hanging out of your mouth! If you hadn't told us you're 52, I would have guessed more around 65. No doubt the weight loss couldn't address the damage done through smoking, but then, aesthetics don't have as much of an impact on how men see themselves, does it?
And therein lays the crux of the issue, in my opinion. Men, of all ages and level of attractiveness, seem to think that having a penis between their legs qualifies them as infinitely desirable to all women, while women must conform to a strict standard of beauty regardless of age. Maybe it's the fact you can hold your sex in your hand and feel powerful while doing it that all women must surely suffer the envy of not being able to do so themselves; hence, your built-in desirability.
Just a wild guess, of course, based on the frequent observation that some of the most loathsome men, both physically and mentally, have an over-bloated sense of themselves, as if their heads swell in direct relation and proportion to their erections.
-
Cynthia signed the petition |
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits
Organizations
-
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund1 Action 0 Recruits -
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals1 Action 0 Recruits
